I am pro-choice. I have friends who are not. I certainly don't want women of any age to face that choice and have never heard of a woman who had an abortion who was not devastated and saddened by it. I am always wary of people who are ready - rain or shine - to lecture about religiously-based morality but do little or nothing to follow words with concrete action that could reduce the need or desire for abortion.

Wake up Notre Dame protestors. Where were you protesting the war when thousands of American military personnel were killed in Iraq? Where are you when the social service network fails and children go without food, a home or proper education? Your selective piety is insulting to those who have very thoughtful reasons for saying that religion should not dictate policy in a free society, especially one that has two important constitutional religious protections. One is the right to freely exercise your religious beliefs without government inteference. The other is that the government must not promote the establishment of religion by using religious teachings from any faith to set policy.

There was a time 40 years ago when the Catholic Church (and many other Jewish, Muslim and Christian faiths) helped in their own way to end the Vietnam War, worked on ending poverty and preached about civil rights for ethnic and racial minorities. I hear very little of that today. The only rallying point seems to be about the extent to which women should be entitled to reproductive freedom.

It should be no secret to you that abortion clinics have largely been replaced by public and private hospitals with seemingly innocuous medical records of 16 year olds that show a D & C due to unexplained menstrual bleeding, likely induced by an internist who was never trained to perform an abortion. They start the process and then refer the patient to the hospital. The young woman gets the abortion while you were busy making signs to scare the daylights out of young women as they entered clinics.

If you get what you want, more women (especially poor women) will die. I hope that you confess your complicity in taking that right away and seek absolution for that sin. Before you do that, I'd like to know that every single child who needs adoption is adopted. When I hear your protests, I always wonder how many of you have opened your homes to hard-to-place kids. If you are going to take the responsibility for overturning Rowe v. Wade, you should take responsibility for the aftermath. You should be on the front line promising your tax dollars to guarantee that every child will never have to live in a homeless shelter and will get all the education they desire. You should throw in a guaranteed job, at a living wage, for the mothers and fathers of these kids.

By the way, I'm Catholic.

Dick Cheney is having trouble moving on

Forget that his approval ratings while in office were even lower than G.W. Bush's. Forget that he is widely credited with using his position to invent evidence to justify a war with a nation that hadn't attacked us and that never had WMDs. Forget that Halliburton, his former employer, has been paid billions since 2003. Dick Cheney is tanned, rested and ready to launch attacks on the Obama administration with the same scare tactics he used while in office.

Dick Cheney is certainly protected by the First Amendment. He is entitled to his opinions and is free to trash the policy positions of Barack Obama. On the other hand, scaring your own people based on policy positions that were already rejected in November isn't exactly useful. Can't the Republican Party find a fresh face to have an honest debate?

Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Christine Todd Whitman and a handful of others should be permitted to tone down the rhetoric and rebuild their party by drawing in more moderates who spend more of their time listening than lecturing. Mr. Cheney stopped listening long ago and appears to believe that he has all the answers.

No one person has all the answers. No one person has a monopoly on patriotism. Someone ought to let the former Vice President in on that little secret.

Miss USA

I can't believe how much national press is devoted to a young California woman who lacks the political savvy to provide a nuanced answer to a question about the desirability of same-sex marriage. The pageant handlers were as flat-footed as she was. There were a million different ways she could have dodged the question without invoking her personal religious beliefs. She even could have said that her personal religious views are not appropriately discussed at such an event and that voters in individual states come to different conclusions on the issue. The federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is, in my opinion, a statute that will one day be overturned by a rational Supreme Court relying mostly on centuries of precedent that a marriage performed in one state gets all of the same legal protection if the couple moves to any other state. Leave this woman alone. The last thing we need is another Joe the Plumber who evinces no understanding of any simple issue, let alone about a complex one.

The good news: the debate over whether to permit same-sex marriage is light years ahead of where I thought we would be in 2009. Sure, there a people with political agendas and people who spew hateful commentary about LGBT rights but most young people couldn't care less if a few million same-sex couples enter into a civil marriage.

If we give Miss USA runners-up a platform on this issue, where does it end? Will we have to give the fifth runner up 15 minutes on the Today Show to talk about where TARP money is properly spent or whether a functioning missile shield will forever destabilize diplomatic relations with Russia and China? Miss USA does not represent anyone. She won a contest that I believe comes along with some scholarship money and a free apartment in NYC for a year.

If we really want to have an intelligent conversation about the issue, ordinary citizens who don't enter contests are just as qualified to weigh in. More and more people are changing their minds because they see same-sex couples living the same (often boring) lives that they themselves lead. I congratulate Vermonters because I agree with what they did at the ballot box. Because I am convinced that DOMA will be overturned eventually, the only beauty pageant I care about involves selecting Supreme Court justices that expansively read the Constitution.

Iraqi Gay Bashing

Gay Iraqis? Well, of course there are gay Iraqis. It's simply a matter of percentages. Does anyone really think that war, organized (or disorganized) religion, poverty or general chaos has any impact on an individual's sexual orientation? I'm not a student of the Koran but I'm fairly certain that clerics will find a passage or two to make sure that they can gin up religious adherents to run out and identify, threaten, beat and kill men and women who have the audacity to be who they are.

Germany was pretty good at this sort of thing in the lead-up to and during WWII (this, by the way, is the origin of the pink triangle (worn by gays in concentration camps) that became an international symbol of the gay civil rights movement, long before the rainbow flag. The United States has had its own witch hunts, beatings and murders that still happen in the country that is often characterized as the leader of the free world.

The United States has made progress, some political and a great deal based on families and friends who have loved ones who are gay and lesbian and refuse to sanction this sort of discrimination. Even so, the gay marriage issue continues to divide the country and probably will for years to come.

But what about the Iraqis? We ought to be air lifting these people out that country and granting them polititcal asylum in the United States, Canada and other friendlier countries, if they choose to leave. Those who stay behind are looking at years - even decades - before they can walk down a street without worrying every minute that they will be beaten or killed. I am not at all optimistic that even President Obama can do much to deal with this issue. I hope I am wrong about that.

Whatever your opinion on same-sex marriage in the U.S. we should all be able to agree that truly civilized societies do not kill people over sexual orientation. It's not enough to say that Iraq has been prevented from establishing a normal civil society because of the destruction of war. It's not the only test, but a good test of whether a society is healthy is how it treats its minorities.

I am not ignoring the plight of women, whose civil and human rights are violated every day, all over the world. If that is an issue that you work on, keep doing it. It is just as important because the root of the problem is the same. When governments fail to use all of their resources to protect the most vulnerable of their citizens, they cannot claim that their societies are truly free.

The Iowa Supreme Court got it right when it said that even in the United States, lesbians and gays do not have the kind of political power that excuses the courts from scrutinizing their fight for civil rights in the way that they do when they evaluate claims of women and racial and ethnic minorities.

It's about time that we really acted like we're the leader of the free world. Work hard to show that we don't tolerate discrimination and don't be shy about calling on other nations to do the same.

First Ladies

Jacqueline Kennedy once famously said to a confidante in late 1960 that she dreaded living in "...that dreary Maison Blanche..." and initially hated the idea of being referred to as the First Lady, deciding that it sounded "...more like the name of a good saddle horse than a person..."

She realized later that she had choices and in many ways reinvented the role in a way that suited her. Lady Bird Johnson did the same thing. Betty Ford, Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush, Hillary Clinton and Laura Bush all attempted to play to their strengths and take an unelected, unpaid job and make it into something positive. So have most first ladies starting with Martha Washington.

It's no surprise then that there is so much focus on how Michelle Obama will decide to leave her mark and how successful she will be at doing it. The big difference in the last 15 years is that media images are no longer susceptible to White House control. The Internet and the proliferation of television programs that trot out 24/7 punditry that masquerades as useful news make her job a much tougher one than many of her predecessors. And, of course, since she is African-American, there is an added burden. Her natural detractors will look for her to stumble and will find ways to explain any perceived misstep as proof that she is not what she appears to be.

Consider the frenzy when Mrs. Obama laid a gentle hand on the Queen of England. Forget that the Queen had already touched the First Lady of the most powerful nation on Earth. Other than royalist Tories who spend their lives worrying about that sort of minutae, who else cares? Come on. Why in the world - especially now - do we focus on such an absolutely innocuous moment? If you think that I am overstating the buzz, go to AOL and read some of the incredibly racist, despicable reader comments that I hope Mrs. Obama never hears about or reads.

If allowed to go her own way, I predict that Michelle Obama will be a positive transformational figure in American and global politics. She probably already knows what a slice of the population is saying and is well-prepared from her own life experience to brush it off and move forward.

I had a history teacher in high school who once said to my class that - in her mind - we all started off in her class as A+ students but it was up to us to maintain that grade. She wasn't kidding. It inspired a number of B students to end up as A students.

In my book, Michelle Obama starts out with an A+. Given her success in life thus far, I am convinced she'll end up in 8 years with the same grade. I won't lower her grade because she returned a gesture to a member of the British royal family or wore a dress that I wouldn't have chosen for her.

These are serious times. It's time for serious people to pull the political debate to serious subjects. Listen to the First Lady's remarks to young women at an all-girls school in London. That was a serious speech on a very important topic: getting young women to believe in themselves and to pursue as much education as they can. I don't remember what she wore. I remember the message that was delivered in a way that even her husband - a master orator - couldn't have done better. We should be very, very proud that she has put herself out there to represent us.

Don't be too surprised about Iowa

As many of you already know, the Iowa Supreme Court just decided that the state had to permit same-sex marriages because under the Iowa (not federal) constitution, the failure to extend those rights to same-sex couples did not serve an important government interest (sometimes referred to as "intermediate scrutiny" of government action and unreasonably deprived these couples of equal protection guaranteed by that state's constitution.

Three things to remember:

1) States can always grant better civil rights than the federal government (one of the better examples is that New York State's highest court was nearly three years ahead of the U.S. Supreme Court in that a woman, with her doctor, had a right to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy.)

2) It doesn't always hurt to ask for your rights in court. The strategic question is when. Plaintiffs in Iowa must have done some pretty amazing research and came up with a winning legal strategy and some confidence that the Iowa court would be receptive.

3) Court appointments matter, whether they involve the local Justice of the Peace or the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. These people are human beings after all and it is vitally important to add your voice to those in the position to select (or in some cases elect) judges.

Prediction: Iowa will still grow a lot of corn and retain its important role in Presidential primaries; upholding this right won't harm anyone in Iowa or anywhere else. Don't pray for a different result. For those who will undoubtedly oppose this, go to your local church and pray for yourselves. Try to focus on the Love Thy Neighbor piece. That is what this is all about.

Obamanomics

I'm soliciting opinions. Is the Obama administration doing the right thing in dealing with the economy? I see some places where I believe the administration is fumbling and places where it is doing what it needs to do.

I'm nervous about the American auto industry, particularly when the administration seems to be making corporate decisions in exchange for stimulus money. Is conditioning the receipt of stimulus cash on the resignation of the CEO of GM prudent? I know the main argument in favor - that if we are going to take an ownership interest in a failing automaker, the government should act like a shareholder and be active in guiding the company. How far does this argument go, though? Will the Treasury Department decide what cars GM will sell? Will it help to price the vehicles? Will it dictate the number of employees GM needs to do all of this? I'm not sure the federal government has the expertise to make those kinds of calls. Even with an Auto Industry Czar, how can we be certain that our representatives will do a better job than institutional private investors who employ industry analysts that constantly track the health of a company.

Would it be a better use of stimulus money to encourage purchasers to buy American with larger tax credits, particularly for those buying smaller (let's face it, less profitable), more fuel efficient vehicles (including foreign makes that are built in the U.S.), or does that amount to naked protectionism that will result in a downward spiral of global protectionism?

I think about the old adage that a little knowledge can be dangerous. Because of the urgency of the problem (and the threat of bankruptcy that would leave unionized and non-unionized workers with very little protection) I am trying not be overly critical of an administration that works for the guy I voted for. I am suspicious of the Republican message that we ought to go down the bankruptcy road.

The big problem, beyond people being unable to afford any new car, much less an SUV, is that GM, Ford and Chrysler have never really crawled out of the trench of lower resale values and the widely-held perception that American cars are not nearly as reliable, well-built or fun to drive as Hondas, Toyotas and other Japanese and German brands. If they can change that perception, I think they can be profitable with or without federal assistance. No government program is going to change those perceptions.

What do you think?